It took them 10 years to figure this out?
I could have told them the same thing in 10 seconds.
Some things are so obvious that a study is not necessary.

'San Fran’s 10-year experiment to prove blacks are ‘brilliant’ at math
fails miserably…'

<https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4286588/posts>

<https://revolver.news/2024/12/san-frans-10-year-experiment-to-prove-blacks-are-brilliant-at-math-fails-miserably/>

'The story we’re about to share reveals a failed ten-year experiment by
officials in San Francisco, who tried desperately to prove that whites
and Asians aren’t better than anyone else when it comes to math.
Needless to say, it failed miserably. The truth—one most people are
afraid to say out loud—is that the left was, once again, covering for
black students, who tend to score much lower in math (and other
subjects). This isn’t “racist”; it’s just facts.

READ MORE: ?? Give the Gift of Revolver This Christmas and Save 20%!
Endorsed by Trump’s Dream Team! ??

Brookings:

African Americans score lower than European Americans on vocabulary,
reading, and math tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure
scholastic aptitude and intelligence. The gap appears before children
enter kindergarten and it persists into adulthood.

The fact that certain races have different average IQs is an
“inconvenient truth” the left refuses to acknowledge. Truthfully, this
doesn’t do black students any favors. We’re not all the same. Different
races excel at different things, and that’s perfectly okay. Pretending
the playing field is level for everyone is a disservice to those who may
naturally need extra help with certain subjects. This failed “math
experiment” in San Francisco proved it’s also a waste of time, money,
and resources. In an effort to claim everyone is “brilliant” at math and
how “racist-free” they were, officials forced strong math students to
lag behind with those who struggled. In the end, everyone lost—another
predictable, epic failure of this “magical,” pie-in-the-sky progressive
thinking.

Diane Yap:

SF public schools forced all students to take algebra in 9th grade
instead of 8th grade because some weren’t ready yet.

The entire motivation was magical thinking. The reformers thought that
if they repeated the incantation “all students are mathematically
brilliant” it would come true.

They believed that giving students access to math classes at the same
time (no one can accelerate, even if they prove they’re ready) would
eliminate unequal outcomes.

They thought it was “unfair” to give students access to classes based on
previous performance in math — that special access to extra classes and
tutors accounted for 100% of the difference in math ability observed in
students.

They blamed “white supremacy” — despite Asians outperforming whites on
standardized math tests in the district.

And their experiment? It failed. The groups they intended to help are
not taking or passing advanced math at higher rates than before. Enough.

This notion that everybody is “brilliant” at math is quite literally,
mathematically impossible.

How’s that for irony?

EdSurge:

Even years later, San Francisco Unified School District casts a shadow
over attempts to quash long-standing disparities in math.

In 2014, the district pushed algebra to ninth grade from eighth grade,
in an attempt to eliminate the tracking, or grouping, of students into
lower and upper math paths. The district hoped that scrapping honors
math classes and eighth grade algebra courses would reduce disparities
in math learning.

For advocates, it struck at the very core of why only some students
perform well in math.

When districts slot students into math classes based on ability they
send conspicuous messages to those on the lower track that they are not
smart enough, says Ho Nguyen, who was a K-12 math and computer science
program administrator in San Francisco during the district’s detracking
attempt. It’s not that it’s always intentional, he’s quick to add. But
these hierarchies affect students’ belief systems and also tend to lower
teachers’ expectations of students labeled worse at math, Nguyen says.
Those attempting to reform this practice contend that all students are
mathematically brilliant, he says.

But don’t worry—facts and actual outcomes don’t matter to these people.
Nothing will stop them from pushing forward with mediocrity. The EdSurge
piece goes on:

Those critical of San Francisco’s detracking attempt argue that the
district put too much emphasis on public relations to the point that it
misrepresented the research. But for Iwasaki, the opposite was true:
They lost the PR battle by not focusing on getting enough community
buy-in, and opening the space for critics to single out negative-looking
data points. Instead, they should have found a way to elevate the voices
of the students who would have been positively impacted by the work,
Iwasaki says. The district was also reluctant to respond to criticism,
which meant that in the absence of answers to detractors, the critics
won by default, he says.

For some, the brawl pushed the work out of the public spotlight.

In the last couple of years, Nguyen says he’s felt “muzzled,” because
his superiors would not allow him to speak openly about the foray into
detracking for fear he would contradict the district’s unwind of the
experiment.

Nguyen also commented that the district’s seven-person math team never
got a chance to make its case to the superintendent about the harm
tracking causes. He said he believes that these positions were
eliminated due to their involvement with the detracking attempt. “The
superintendent and the math department could have found ways to delay or
offer solutions that could appease enough parents. He was not an ally
and instead did the bidding of the Board of Education, most of whom
sided with the small group of parents who pushed for tracking,” Nguyen
wrote in a note to EdSurge.

These days, Nguyen works in San Mateo, a nearby suburb, as a curriculum
and instruction services coordinator.

Meanwhile, San Francisco Unified argues that its emphasis on equity
remains steadfast.

Even when faced with total failure, these “intellectual” progressives
double down. They keep pushing their failed, dangerous, and unproductive
“DEI” agenda, trying to make everyone “brilliant” at achieving less and
barely good enough to pass even the most basic tasks.'